If ICD-9 data has value, does ICD-10 data have more value?

One of the reasons used to justify ICD-10 implementation is that the granular data can be used in healthcare research.

It's worth noting there is healthcare research being done now with ICD-9 data. Serious studies are being done based upon ICD-9 codes. Healthcare providers are tracking ICD-9 codes as part of small research projects. And we are learning from this collection of data.

Thus ICD-9 data that is being collected by clinicians has value and affects how physicians treat their patients.

It's important to say this because one of the arguments against ICD-10 implementation is that all that granular data won't improve patient care. It's as if physicians will have to make a choice between having time to treat a patient and documenting the encounter.

But it looks like physicians are treating patients and contributing to research with ICD-9 codes. There seems to be room to do both.

Of course if this is happening now — if we're treating patients and contributing to a body of medical knowledge, it doesn't look like we need ICD-10 granularity.

And if you look at the studies being done already, you would be tempted to agree with that argument. Except when you consider that these studies take time — years — and a lot of data to draw conclusions. Having the chance to gather much more data will improve research.